Talk:Fluid
Good use of internal links *Non-Newtonian fluids could be on both sides of Newtonian fluids in your continuum *You need inline citations throughout and especially on pictures --Wengler 19:26, September 30, 2009 (UTC) Review by Michael Jones # A number of grammatical and spelling errors were corrected. Some sections still need some work. # Any statement of fact needs to be cited within the work to the references listed below. # Thorough differentiation between fluids and solids. # In In Microscopic View do you mean to say "...or is neglectible (gas)"? # Some work needs to be done in the Classification of Fluid section on grammar and sentence structure. (especially "The real fluid is tangential or shearing forces..." What are you trying to say?) # Careful of plagiarism. The section on non-Newtonian fluids, for example, is exactly the same as on the Wikipedia page. You need to paraphrase and then cite the reference where the information came from. # Diagrams need citations. # Some of the sections seem a little redundant. Perhaps the sections could be rearranged to combine similar areas. # It would be nice to see how this relates to Aerospace and Design specifically. How do different properties of fluids impact flight. What assumptions can be made about the fluids and what implications do flight characteristics have on these assumptions (ex. compressibility effects)? Michael.jones 20:56, September 30, 2009 (UTC) Review by Felipe Ortega In addition to the prior review, I would like to add the following: *Good level of technical review. *Definitions of terms such as "viscosity" and "non-Newtonian" fluids should be relocated to sub-sections where they are first introduced. *Which liquids are not considered fluids?-as stated in the introduction. *Several sentences would be easier to understand if they are shortened and divided. *The distance between two plates being "not too great" is somewhat ambiguous. *Figure 4 is not legible. *The proportion symbol (OC) may be improved by inserting symbolic text from a word document. Please forgive me if I have gone too far in the editing of what I perceived as grammatical errors. I do not wish to alter the substance of your work. As noted above, the proper citation of your references is very important. Felipe Ortega 18:10, September 30, 2009 (UTC) The introductory paragraph is rather un-encyclopedic. It would be better to remove it and just start with the definition. The table "fluid as a continuum" does not make any sense... perhaps more discussion of it is needed. I have never heard the claim "not all liquids are fluids"... you should cite this fact and expand on it. Instead of trying to make a proportional sign with OC, make a real one and include it in as an image. Also, make sure you cite all your references, you'll get a 0 if you don't. -- Matt Daskilewicz It shows that you took into consideration these suggestions, and I have just the following to add: *You probably shouldn't have used wikipedia as a reference, rather looked up some of the information their articles referenced. *The table under 'Definition of Fluid' is still a little ambiguous and could use some explanation on this page rather than turning the reader away to the external reference. *Solid information that explains a fluid in the context of our problem fairly well. Jason Corman]